Keep Calm and Appreciate: A Very British Take on Positive Psychology
A few blogs ago, I wrote about how Jurassic Park should be a module in any change management course, specifically highlighting the perils of trying to control change in a complex/chaotic environment. This blog follows on from that thinking.
Recently, a colleague and I discussed the various tools used within a positive psychology framework. This led to a productive reflection on why we use positive psychology, its limitations, and associated tools such as Clifton Strengths.
How does Jurassic Park and Positive Psychology tie together? Whether we're dealing with individual leadership, organisational development, or change management, the common goal is to shift behaviour.
Change Management, in its traditional form, grew out of Frederick Taylor's dominant Scientific Management theory. For much of the 20th century, this approach to problem-solving, change management, and organisational development was successful. Often, in complicated/simple environments, a singular 'root cause' could be identified, isolated, and changed. Organisations were seen as mechanical systems. The system could be unfrozen, changed, and refrozen, and John Kotter's eight steps could be witnessed, predicted, and planned for.
However, things changed when much of the business environment these tools were developed for shifted from complicated to complex and chaotic in the latter quarter of the 20th century. Organisational systems are now nested within and interdependent on this wider global system. We teach the concept of VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity) alongside those more traditional tools, which were not designed to deal with VUCA environments we now find ourselves in.
So, what are some of the tools that can help us navigate in what we might call, at the risk of using "peak geekery" language, a "post-modernist" world?
One such "post-modernist" tool is Appreciative Inquiry (AI). AI is built from the ground up differently from other behavioural change approaches. It is based on these 5 assumptions:
The constructionist principle: Reality as we know it is a subjective state, rather than an objective one. There is no singular reality that can be universally measured or observed from multiple view points.
The principle of simultaneity: Inquiry is intervention and creates change. The moment we begin to ask a question, we begin to create change. Diagnosis is not separate from action. But inquiry-change are interdependent in the same way Gibson describes perception-action.
The poetic principle: Human organisations are an open book, and their stories are constantly being co-authored. There is no end, no fixed state. It is always an organisation in flux. Pasts, presents, and futures are endless sources of learning, inspiration, and interpretation. We have a choice about what we study, and what we study changes organisations.
The anticipatory principle: Human systems move in the direction of their images of the future. The more positive and hopeful the image of the future, the more positive the present-day action.
The positive principle: Momentum for large-scale change requires large amounts of positive affect and social bonding. This momentum is best generated through positive questions that amplify the positive core
(Cantore & Cooperrider,pg. 278, 2016)
As someone who is always asking, "What is the problem we are solving?", the positive principle represents a paradigm shift. However, many of these ideas resonate. For example, the constructionist principle aligns with the increasing complexity of scenarios and systems. Take EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) as an example: the more complex it becomes, the less there is an objective state, as seen in the concept of intersectionality. Or consider disability: one person's impairment is another person's disability or superpower. Hours can be spent trying to create objective data, only to end up with an even more distorted and unrepresentative view of the system you're trying to influence.
The simultaneity and poetic principles are perhaps the most subtle but significant shifts away from traditional diagnostic styles of change. Traditional approaches assume they understand the problem, often through expert diagnosis, can isolate variables (5 whys), instruct the change, and then exit. But this ignores a complex system's power to self-organise and its constant state of flux. We all know how behaviour changes once it is observed (Hawthorne Effect), let alone integrated through an audit/diagnosis. Inquiry leaves a permanent footprint.
Finally, the anticipatory principle: being British, we're not known for being as positive as our American cousins. By focusing on the positive aspects of a future rather than avoiding pitfalls, we affect what we attune to and, therefore, what actions we take. This is not to say we should avoid considering dangers, but rather move towards opportunities as opposed to just away from risks.
Have a think about the change methodologies you have or do currently use, how many of them break or align with the 5 principles specified above?
In the next blog, I'll introduce the application of Appreciative Inquiry through the four stages of Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny without rolling any eyes….
Cantore, S. P., & Cooperrider, D. L. (2016). Positive Psychology and Appreciative Inquiry: The Contribution of the Literature to an Understanding of the Nature and Process of Change in Organizations. In H. S. Leonard, R. Lewis, A. M. Freedman, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Psychology of Leadership, Change, and Organizational Development (pp. 267–287). Wiley.